A. Whether an act of failing to comply with the request of a church council for prohibition of entry and resolution and withdrawal constitutes a crime of non-compliance with eviction although the church's members request to leave for the purpose of interfering with the worship of the church (affirmative)

B. Whether an act of failing to comply with the request for eviction after entering the entrance of the church building constitutes the above crime of “A” (affirmative)

C. Whether a manager may prohibit or restrict entry into and departure from an open place (affirmative) and in the case of a church

A. It is proved that the defendant has access to a church not for the purpose of worship but for the purpose of hindering the worship of the church and impairing the peace of the church, which is the managing body of the above church building at the church church meeting which is referred to as the managing body of the above church, and accordingly, if the administrator of the above church requests the withdrawal of the defendant, the above church's intent to prohibit the defendant from entering the church is clearly expressed. Therefore, it is just to request the withdrawal of the above church, and the act of not refusing to leave constitutes the crime of refusing to leave.

B. Since it is obvious that the current state of view is part of a building, as long as the defendant enters the present state of a church building, if he/she did not comply with a request to leave the church manager at that place, the crime of refusing to leave is established.

(c)a church belongs to the collective ownership of the members, which belongs to all the members have the right to use and benefit from, and whose access is impliedly approved, and even if it is generally open, the manager may prohibit or restrict the entry when necessary;

Article 319(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act

C. Supreme Court Decision 82Do1363 delivered on March 8, 1983 (Gong1983,677)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 89No4223 delivered on August 16, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Even though the non-indicted who is the administrator of a church was punished by assaulting the defendant in the course of demanding the withdrawal of the defendant, which was entered the church within the above church, even though the non-indicted was subjected to a resolution prohibiting entry from the above church, the act of the defendant who did not comply with the above demand for the withdrawal does not constitute a justifiable act. In the same purport, the court below's decision is proper, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out, in violation of the rules of evidence

2. According to the evidence of the first instance judgment of the court below's employees, it is proved that the defendant has access to the church for the purpose of hindering the worship of the church, not the purpose of worship, and thereby impairing the peace of the church, and therefore, the church church conference which is the managing body of the above church building has passed a resolution prohibiting the access of the defendant to the church, and accordingly, he can be aware of the fact that the non-indicted demanded the withdrawal of the defendant. If the above circumstances are the same, the opinion of the above church is clearly expressed in order to prevent the defendant from entering the church, so whether the decision is null and void as a result of the procedure violation of the church law shall be a pleading, and if the decision to leave was made with the intention of the above, and it does not affect the establishment of the crime of

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, or omission of judgment.

The precedent of a party member is different from this case and is not appropriate.

3. Since it is obvious that the present position is part of the building under social norms, as long as the defendant enters the present position of the above church building, if he did not comply with the demand of the non-indicted to leave the place, it shall be deemed that the crime of refusal to leave is established.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below shall not contain any violation of the rules of evidence, errors in the application of statutes, or misapprehension of legal principles.

4. The church belongs to the collective ownership of the members, and all the members have the right to use and benefit from the church, and the access is the place which is implicitly agreed, but even if the open place is generally open, the manager may prohibit or restrict the access when necessary (see Supreme Court Decisions 82Do1363, Mar. 8, 1983; 82Do1363, Sept. 8, 1983; 5). If the above church church members decided that the access of the defendant to the church would prejudice the peace of the church and caused the non-indicted to prohibit his access, the defendant's act of failing to comply with the request for withdrawal constitutes the crime of non-compliance with the request for withdrawal, and there is no error of law such as the misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out. And the issue of whether the civil access to the defendant

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)